Skip to content


T.V. Ranga Rao Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. Seth Balaksonlal Janaki Prasad-represented by His Power of Attorney Holder Pannalal Fomra and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad940(1); (1941)2MLJ452
AppellantT.V. Ranga Rao Naidu (Died) and ors.
RespondentSeth Balaksonlal Janaki Prasad-represented by His Power of Attorney Holder Pannalal Fomra and ors.
Cases Referred(see Shujaatmand Khan v. Govind Behari
Excerpt:
- - 2. on the merits, the court below has clearly found that the extent mentioned in the mortgage deed which was subsequently copied in the plaint and the preliminary and final decrees was a mistake and this finding cannot be questioned in revision......in my opinion for restricting section 152 of the civil procedure code to mistakes or errors which occur for the first time in the plaint or the subsequent proceedings in court. this court has applied section 152 also to cases where the mistake occurred earlier in the document evidencing the transaction itself and was copied in the plaint and the decree in the suit brought to enforce the transaction (see satyanarayana v. purnayya (1930) 61 m.l.j. 805. the allahabad high court has taken the view that the section is inapplicable to such cases (see shujaatmand khan v. govind behari : air1934all100 , but with all respect i am of opinion that the view taken by this court is the sounder one and i have no hesitation in following it in preference to that of the allahabad high court.2. on the.....
Judgment:

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. There is no ground in my opinion for restricting Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to mistakes or errors which occur for the first time in the plaint or the subsequent proceedings in Court. This Court has applied Section 152 also to cases where the mistake occurred earlier in the document evidencing the transaction itself and was copied in the plaint and the decree in the suit brought to enforce the transaction (see Satyanarayana v. Purnayya (1930) 61 M.L.J. 805. The Allahabad High Court has taken the view that the section is inapplicable to such cases (see Shujaatmand Khan v. Govind Behari : AIR1934All100 , but with all respect I am of opinion that the view taken by this Court is the sounder one and I have no hesitation in following it in preference to that of the Allahabad High Court.

2. On the merits, the Court below has clearly found that the extent mentioned in the mortgage deed which was subsequently copied in the plaint and the preliminary and final decrees was a mistake and this finding cannot be questioned in revision.

3. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //